On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 05:00:58PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> The problem with log_newpage_buffer() is that we'd quite possibly issue
> one such call per item on a page. And that might become quite
> expensive. Logging ~1.5MB per 8k page in the worst case sounds a bit
> scary.
I had in mind issuing at most one call per page. heap_page_prune() has a
structure conducive to that.
> On 2013-11-30 00:40:06 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Time is tight to finalize this, but it would be best to get this into next
> > week's release. That way, the announcement, fix, and mitigating code
> > pertaining to this data loss bug all land in the same release. If necessary,
> > I think it would be worth delaying the release, or issuing a new release a
> > week or two later, to closely align those events.
> I am not sure if it's a good idea to delay the release because of this,
> there are so many other critical issues that that seems like a bad
> tradeoff.
Fair enough; I'll drop that proposal.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
